On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 21:31 +0100, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 17:43 +0100, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > >> If it is obscure enough that conciseness doesn't matter, I suggest > >> MutationInsensitivelyCompatible. > > > > Unfortunately, I suspect it is not quite that obscure. I have asked > > Swaroop to send out an example where it arises. > > > > The closest I have come to something seems OK is: > > > > Mutable? > > > > With the '?' indicating optionality rather than predication. My main > > concern is that '?' is used by convention to mean predicates elsewhere > > in LISP-like languages. > > I'd find that quite confusing. The description you gave before for > top-copy-compat didn't seem to be simplifiable to just "mutable".
Um. I was suggesting that (top-copy-compat 'a 'b) could be written as (mutable? 'a 'b) but I agree that this is confusing. > Types / typeclasses are usually named either as nouns, or as adjectives > describing the set of values intended to be of that type. So I would guess > that a type called 'Mutable' was supposed to indicate values that are > (in some sense) mutable, regardless of the presence or absence of ?. The type (mutable T) indicates a mutable location whose value has type T. The "top-copy-compat" that we are discussing is a type class. That is: a type qualifier. > Nice uses an initial ? for option types. Yes. Option types is not what I meant here. The problem is merely that top-copy-compat is so ugly. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
